NEW from me for @amprog @CAPimmigration I lay out why the 100-day moratorium on deportation is critical and why the courts must let it go

So why is the moratorium so important? Over the 4 years of the Trump administration, ICE and CBP took actions that were both cruel and illegal, from family separation, to much much more.

The 100 day pause gives the administration time to get to the bottom of what happened.
Need more evidence? Last fall ICE deported someone even without a deportations order and even before he could go before a judge. They admitted their wrongdoing in court.

https://t.co/40iPJjMPtd
The same 1/20 Memo that set out the moratorium orders a top-to-bottom review of immigration policy at DHS. But to make that successful DHS has to ensure that no one is deported who otherwise shouldn't be. Hence the pause.
And yet Texas--who was all about executive authority on immigration under Trump, not so much now--sued to try and stop it, and a federal judge agreed, putting the moratorium on hold.

Here's why that is wrong.
Judge Tipton argued that the law says plainly that anyone with a final order of deportation has to be removed w/in 90 days.

But SCOTUS has again and again affirmed that DHS has broad discretion at every phase of enforcement.
And the 1/20 Memo anticipates this exact challenge and directs ICE to set up an individualized review of anyone with a final removal order 90+ days.
Judge Tipton also argued that DHS didn't explain well enough WHY they needed the moratorium. But the exact lawlessness of ICE and CBP under Trump is EXACTLY why the moratorium is needed.
So in sum, the moratorium is critical and should go into effect immediately.

And of course what happens after the first 100 days is equally important, as @TomJawetz lays out: https://t.co/EVWQxzkvCK
Anyways, learn more about the moratorium and why it needs to move forward here: https://t.co/WpNt6Tglhd

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like